Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> While we're on the subject of ditching, can we get rid of 
>>> foreach_reverse? How hard is it for a range to just have a reverse 
>>> property:
>>>
>>> foreach(element; myrange.reverse)
>>>
>>> Which simply reverses the order of traversal?  That also would moot the 
>>> toe/last/tail/etc. debate ;)
>> I wish that debate went away. But eliminating toe and retreat would 
>> require requiring .reverse as a primitive for *all* ranges, which is 
>> wasteful and repetitive. Instead, a better design is to have ranges (those 
>> that can) offer toe and retreat primitives such that a generic function 
>> retro offers backward iteration for any range. In addition, certain 
>> algorithms (such as the one that reverses a range in place) need to 
>> manipulate the same range from two ends. Implementing them using .reverse 
>> and a second range would be more difficult.
> 
> I didn't say you couldn't provide toe and retreat in Phobos' ranges (for the 
> reverse-a-range function).  Most likely such an algorithm is not using 
> foreach and foreach_reverse, but using the functions directly.
> 
> My point was, foreach_reverse is an eyesore and a hack, and there really is 
> no need for it.  And what a perfect time to get rid of it, since we are 
> already changing how foreach works ;)
> 
> I realize that this wouldn't really kill the toe debate for Phobos, but at 
> least it would be a library decision, and not part of the compiler.

Yah, that makes sense. I vote for foreach_reverse to go away, too.

Andrei